Internet uprising overturns Australian censorship law

Australia's national Internet filter still lives, but South Australia has …

The state of South Australia has a new election law that went into effect January 6, and its effect was shocking: anonymous political speech on the Internet was simply destroyed.

The law required anyone posting a political comment online during an election period to supply their real name and address or face a fine of up to AUS$1,250. The measure was grossly discriminatory—it applied only to bloggers and commenters, not to online "journals" (newspapers or magazine which are written by Real Journalists).

Politicians had apparently developed a thin skin to anonymous commentary, some of which no doubt did devolve into rank defamation, but Australia already has defamation laws that could be used against truly egregious material. Ending online anonymous speech was an extreme solution, one not appreciated by the targets of the law.

AdelaideNow was one of the main sites caught in the crosshairs. The site provides a forum for discussion of local affairs, and it railed in an editorial this morning about the rule, both for practical and principled reasons.

"It's hard to imagine South Australia's Electoral Commissioner will prowl the Internet day after day during the election campaign policing such a ridiculous law," said the paper. "Realistically and logically, there is no need. All blogs and comments published on AdelaideNow are moderated. Broadcasters monitor and moderate what is broadcast. All also abide by extensive laws that prevent the publication or broadcast of defamatory and other illegal material."

Then came the expected comparison to China; "It is instructive that similar laws were also enacted in China last year, a country which has yet to embrace free speech."

The law was backed by South Australia's Attorney General, Michael Atkinson. Atkinson took the radio yesterday to defend the new rule, saying that anonymity was being used by political opponents to attack him in secret.

Fornarino, the man who doesn't exist

"I'll give you an example: repeatedly in the AdelaideNow website one will see commentary from Aaron Fornarino of West Croydon. That person doesn't exist," Atkinson said on the air. "That name has been created by the Liberal Party in order to run Liberal Party commentary."

This morning, AdelaideNow took great delight in posting a picture of Fornarino posing with a Mac and his young daughter. He's a second-year law student who moved to the area last year and "lives in a flat on Port Rd, about 500m from Mr. Atkinson's electorate office."

The fine art of the "backdown"

The cries of the outraged citizenry have had an effect. While defending the new rules as recently as yesterday, Atkinson suddenly backed off from them today. He sent a statement to AdelaideNow, one remarkable for its candor.

"From the feedback we've received through AdelaideNow, the blogging generation believes that the law supported by all MPs and all political parties is unduly restrictive. I have listened. I will immediately after the election move to repeal the law retrospectively... It may be humiliating for me, but that's politics in a democracy and I'll take my lumps."

South Australia's Premier, Mike Rann, knows his way around the tweet-o-sphere, and he backed up Atkinson's comments with his own Twitter commentary.

"For many young people, and even the not so young, internet is their parliament of ideas and information," said one. Then, immediately after: "AG has listened. So no debate will be stifled. No political censorship of blogs or on-line comments whether named or anon."

So—a victory for people power? Sure. But don't let one bad law obscure the point that anonymous activity really can lead to problems (see malware, creation and distribution of). Case in point: Engadget today took the dramatic step of actually turning off its comments after they became "mean, ugly, pointless, and frankly threatening in some situations" over the last few days.

At least they left us with an awesome picture involving lasers and dinosaurs—and at least the government wasn't mandating the action.

Clarification for those not in the know: I'm a regular on Engadget, and the disabling of comments was due to every comment, on every story, regardless of topic, being something to the tune of "OMG IPAD SUX EVERYONE WHO LIKES IT IS A FANBOI!!!!111!" for the last week or so.

I'm a true believer in the necessity of anonymous speech, and I'm glad to see that this law is being repealed, but at the same time it's a simple fact that the vast majority of internet commenters simply don't have anything useful to say, leading to things like Engadget's step of simply shutting them off. No point in having comments if they don't contribute anything.

You know, anonymous free speech is something I've always been leery of. On a fundamental scale, I think everyone should be free to make the comments they wish, but they should also stand behind them with their identity.

However, I don't think that principle stands up in any place that does not have the principle of free speech strongly enshrined in its laws and culture. So it's a difficult balance to strike.

Ultimately, I'd love to see the American concept of free speech as the baseline for the world, and then no speech being anonymous. Be proud and stand up who you are (and yes, my handle is tied to my real person).

Originally posted by gwenkhan:Clarification for those not in the know: I'm a regular on Engadget, and the disabling of comments was due to every comment, on every story, regardless of topic, being something to the tune of "OMG IPAD SUX EVERYONE WHO LIKES IT IS A FANBOI!!!!111!" for the last week or so.

I'm a true believer in the necessity of anonymous speech, and I'm glad to see that this law is being repealed, but at the same time it's a simple fact that the vast majority of internet commenters simply don't have anything useful to say, leading to things like Engadget's step of simply shutting them off. No point in having comments if they don't contribute anything.

I was wondering why Engadget's comments had really vanished; good to know.

You know, anonymous free speech is something I've always been leery of. On a fundamental scale, I think everyone should be free to make the comments they wish, but they should also stand behind them with their identity.

For those of you not from Australia, we had this wonderful prime minster for far too long named John Howard. He came up with this great phrase, "non-core promises". Basically it meant that it was a promise made during the election that wasn't something he ever actually intended to do, so he didn't. I expect that this law will go through a review process then be modified to exist in exactly the same form with different wording to further "protect" Mr Atkinson from the big, scary internet.

I'm still wondering where the response is to the many civil email and letters I've sent this man with queries regarding his actions, as the man upholding South Australian law, he doesn't think highly of accountability.

Captain Bajingles999 West InternetThe former Parliamentary Democracy of Australia

Ultimately, I'd love to see the American concept of free speech as the baseline for the world, and then no speech being anonymous. Be proud and stand up who you are (and yes, my handle is tied to my real person).

Originally posted by gwenkhan:Clarification for those not in the know: I'm a regular on Engadget, and the disabling of comments was due to every comment, on every story, regardless of topic, being something to the tune of "OMG IPAD SUX EVERYONE WHO LIKES IT IS A FANBOI!!!!111!" for the last week or so.

That's Engadget's problem, which Engadget, not the government, has the responsibility to solve. Ars seems to take care of trolls so I imagine Engadget could too if it tried.

Good for them. Political speech should be anonymous! How can one speak their mind if they're shackled at the hip? We (The U.S., and many first world nations) railed at Iraq's elections as, voters needed a fingerprint to cast their opinion (hmm, suspicious much?). Why do we not have the same vitriol in regard to this nonsense?

While I am disgusted at the nonsense that huge political organizations use to influence voters. I'm more worried that free speech will be impeded by such laws. The free flow of ideas and ideals are far more important than curbing any kind of political manipulation (as that can be easily curbed by freedom with regard to information).

Originally posted by gwenkhan:Clarification for those not in the know: I'm a regular on Engadget, and the disabling of comments was due to every comment, on every story, regardless of topic, being something to the tune of "OMG IPAD SUX EVERYONE WHO LIKES IT IS A FANBOI!!!!111!" for the last week or so.

I'm a true believer in the necessity of anonymous speech, and I'm glad to see that this law is being repealed, but at the same time it's a simple fact that the vast majority of internet commenters simply don't have anything useful to say, leading to things like Engadget's step of simply shutting them off. No point in having comments if they don't contribute anything.

But it is over rated...... now if it was 200$.............

Anyway comments are comments, some quick sound bites off the top of your head some deep and thought provoking, or at least provoke thought. If a site can't handle them they just go away, this is not the 90s with static read only web sites anymore.....

Idiots having juvenile arguments or being stupid I can deal with. But the government holding a gun to my head telling me how I can and can't utilize my "free speech" rights ... well, if I would allow that to happen, I might as well just hook myself to the matrix pod and let myself get farmed for energy.

Side note, if they DID get this passed, the next thing they'd push for is for every citizen to wear a name tag with their home address and other critical info on it in plain sight. That way, if you're at a large rally and someone shouts something in the background while trying to stay anonymous, everyone can just look over to see who it is and call the cops on them using the detailed info. Folks will no longer be allowed to wear clothing that hides their identity. So attendance at porn stores would drop. It would be a huge blow to the AU economy.

You know, anonymous free speech is something I've always been leery of. On a fundamental scale, I think everyone should be free to make the comments they wish, but they should also stand behind them with their identity.

Deep Throat.

Deep Throat never spoke freely, only guardedly in the shadows of empty parking ramps, etc.

I see a complete difference between a website shutting off their own comments (or banning individuals/IP Addresses, for bad comments) and the governments saying you have to give your real name and address to everyone else on the internet for all time if you want to say anything about them.

One is moderation, the other is censorship. The two aren't related. Just like the guy who got banned from XBox Live can't win on a Freedom of Speech complaint. The actual law stops the government from passing a law restricting free speech, and cooling effect come into play. It doesn't mean that anyone can say anything they want, anywhere they want without reprisal. And, no, I'm not talking about yelling fire in a theater. I'm talking about insulting your boss/company on a blog. You get fired, tough. Should have been more careful about what you said. I'm talking about insulting someone, he hits you, you might be able to get him for assult, but the judge will take into account you were insulting. You act like a punk on a website or in a game, and you can expect to get banned. Freedom of speech doesn't mena there are no consequences of anything you say.

Originally posted by Happysin:You know, anonymous free speech is something I've always been leery of. On a fundamental scale, I think everyone should be free to make the comments they wish, but they should also stand behind them with their identity.

However, I don't think that principle stands up in any place that does not have the principle of free speech strongly enshrined in its laws and culture. So it's a difficult balance to strike.

Ultimately, I'd love to see the American concept of free speech as the baseline for the world, and then no speech being anonymous. Be proud and stand up who you are (and yes, my handle is tied to my real person).

You do realize that some people have been murdered or severely hurt because they stood behind their public comments in the United States.

Several people in southern states went mysteriously missing standing up for "Black" Rights.

I don't think it is as black and white of an issue as you think. There are a lot of grey areas. Anonymous speech can physically protect people with "unpopular" ideas or beliefs. Some of the ideas/beliefs that we take for granted today were extremely unpopular in the past.

Anonymous speech also allows those with little to no power to be heard without powerful people (government, big business, ect) from being able to shut them down just because they don't like it.

Of course, how anonymous we are on the Internet is a different discussion all together.

Originally posted by Happysin:You know, anonymous free speech is something I've always been leery of. On a fundamental scale, I think everyone should be free to make the comments they wish, but they should also stand behind them with their identity.

However, I don't think that principle stands up in any place that does not have the principle of free speech strongly enshrined in its laws and culture. So it's a difficult balance to strike.

Ultimately, I'd love to see the American concept of free speech as the baseline for the world, and then no speech being anonymous. Be proud and stand up who you are (and yes, my handle is tied to my real person).

I look at it as much the same as free speech in general, necessary for a well functioning democracy but definitely not without its warts. Putting up with internet jerks to allow things like wikileaks is along the same line as putting up with neonazi protesters to allow for the Montgomery bus boycotts.

Ultimately, I'd love to see the American concept of free speech as the baseline for the world, and then no speech being anonymous. Be proud and stand up who you are (and yes, my handle is tied to my real person).

The CONCEPT is sound. Your IMPLEMENTATION is deeply flawed.

I quite agree, and this is one of those times where I think ideals must take a back seat to pragmatism, and that pragmatism is that anonymous free speech is critical as a balance to the imperfections (or outright malice) of our social/government systems.

While it sounds noble to stand behind our comments with our identities, chances are that valid ideas will never be expressed. Our lives are too interconnected. Am I going to lose business, or have my car vandalized because I present a valid though unpopular idea? We would end up with nothing but bland politically correct comments. You could use the same argument to eliminate the secret ballot in elections. After all, shouldn't you publicly stand behind that decision too?

It appeared the the "Engadget street" so to speak was not very happy about the crazy amount of iPad articles Engadget has been running in recent history and I guess the Engadget comment moderation system, couldn't handle it.

Originally posted by dragosani:You do realize that some people have been murdered or severely hurt because they stood behind their public comments in the United States.

Several people in southern states went mysteriously missing standing up for "Black" Rights.

This doesn't invalidate my point at all. In face, there is a solid argument that the mainstream impetus for generalized civil rights was when horrible acts like that came to light. Those that risked and lost their lives in that struggle did exactly what they hoped for, they made people sit up and take notice. In societies such as ours, the brutality of response when suppressing someone is often proportional with how seriously the mainstream takes notice.

Originally posted by dragosani:You do realize that some people have been murdered or severely hurt because they stood behind their public comments in the United States.

Several people in southern states went mysteriously missing standing up for "Black" Rights.

This doesn't invalidate my point at all. In face, there is a solid argument that the mainstream impetus for generalized civil rights was when horrible acts like that came to light. Those that risked and lost their lives in that struggle did exactly what they hoped for, they made people sit up and take notice. In societies such as ours, the brutality of response when suppressing someone is often proportional with how seriously the mainstream takes notice.

Originally posted by dragosani:You do realize that some people have been murdered or severely hurt because they stood behind their public comments in the United States.

Several people in southern states went mysteriously missing standing up for "Black" Rights.

This doesn't invalidate my point at all. In face, there is a solid argument that the mainstream impetus for generalized civil rights was when horrible acts like that came to light. Those that risked and lost their lives in that struggle did exactly what they hoped for, they made people sit up and take notice. In societies such as ours, the brutality of response when suppressing someone is often proportional with how seriously the mainstream takes notice.

I think you ran off onto a tangent. Why should a person have to choose death, bodily injury, or property damage to "voice" their ideals and beliefs?

You do not and should not have to become a martyr to get people to see your point of view.

That cause and effect scenario you describe can happen in the reverse direction. The "mainstream" can take notice then the violence can increase. The clash between ideals/beliefs can and do become more violent as the "mainstream" takes notice. In the case of civil rights it became more and more violent as more and more people took notice.

Mr Atkinson is also the person who I believe is stopping Australia from having an R 18+ classification for video games.

I am against this but one thing I've learned is that people political opinions are totally misinformed anyway.

This "censorship" thing is doing lots of damage to our international reputation, besides this stupid political rubbish this is actually one of the most easy going places in the world in terms of how the people actually are.

Originally posted by NicFromNewy:Mr Atkinson is also the person who I believe is stopping Australia from having an R 18+ classification for video games.

I am against this but one thing I've learned is that people political opinions are totally misinformed anyway.

This "censorship" thing is doing lots of damage to our international reputation, besides this stupid political rubbish this is actually one of the most easy going places in the world in terms of how the people actually are.

Oh yeah, I forgot to voice my original opinion.

Why is this guy still in office, let alone breathing? He appears to be an overt fascist.